Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency]
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in : In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Radium wrote: On Jul 1, 7:24 am, wrote in http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...0c8ed13?hl=en& : how would u like to change the cell phone industry? Analog cells phones should stop using FM and should start using AM with SHF frequencies - at least 3 GHz and at most 30 GHz. Analog cell phones are going away. True. Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region. False. 1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz. ..8 GHz is not in the -region- of 3 GHz. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency]
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in
: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote: On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region. False. 1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz. False. -- Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency]
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in : In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote: On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region. False. 1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz. False. It certainly is within about 20%. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency]
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:55:01 GMT, wrote in
: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote: On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in : In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote: On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region. False. 1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz. False. It certainly is within about 20%. No radio engineer would agree. -- Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS: John Navas http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency]
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:55:01 GMT, wrote in : In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote: On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:05:01 GMT, wrote in : In rec.radio.amateur.antenna John Navas wrote: On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:45:02 GMT, wrote in Cell phones already use frequencies in the 3 GHz region. False. 1.9 GHz is in the -region- of 3 GHz. False. It certainly is within about 20%. No radio engineer would agree. That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between 1.9 GHz and 3 GHz. What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How I would like to change the cell phone industry [was AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency]
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Jeff Liebermann wrote:
hath wroth: John Navas wrote: No radio engineer would agree. I are an radio/RF/wireless/communications/whatever engineer and I agree with John Navas that cellular is nowhere near 3GHz. That should have been about 30%, but in any case, I am an engineer and there isn't a whole hell of a lot of anything different between 1.9 GHz and 3 GHz. Baloney. See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/oet/spectrum/table/fcctable.pdf Zoom in to the area between 1.9GHz and 3.0GHz. There's a huge amount of point to point, wi-fi, WiMax, satellite, XM/Serius, radar, military, etc, stuff in that area. That's also where Sprint and others have recently purchased bandwidth for advanced data services. What? Some trivial differences in path losses? Antennas a bit different in size by what, 4 mm unless I slipped a decimal point in my head? There's no disgrace in admiting that you've made a misake. There's plenty in trying to bluster your way out of admitting it followed by trying to trivialize your mistake. I agree there is a lot of stuff allocated between 1.9 GHz and 3 GHz, but FCC regulations wasn't the point. Lemme try again. Put up two transmitters with everything identical in terms of lambda, one on 1.9 GHz, one on 3 GHz. Run around all you want with a field strength meter. There isn't going to be spit worth of difference. Antenna sizes? A matter of millimeters. Equipment construction techniques, part availability, etc? Negligable differences. There isn't much difference between 2 GHz radio and 3 GHz radio. Do the above with 800 MHz and 3 GHz. Now you start seeing some differences. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency | Antenna | |||
AM electromagnetic waves: 20 KHz modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency | Shortwave | |||
AM electromagnetic waves: astronomically-high modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency | Antenna | |||
AM electromagnetic waves: astronomically-high modulation frequency on an astronomically-low carrier frequency | Shortwave | |||
Electromagnetic frequency allocations in xml ? | General |